Charlie Brown & Snoopy, the Seattle night shots are solid, and Johann's shots are wonderful (I especially like the one in color) but honestly the image quality does not look any better than the ground breaking Nikon D90 (2008). So in some ways I'm thinking it's a big improvement for micro 4/3s sensors but still behind the APS-c sensor. I'd expect the 4/3s to catch up pretty soon. Definitely within the next couple of years.

the image quality does not look any better than the ground breaking Nikon D90 (2008).

I am wondering, in all seriousness, what would the images have to look like to impress you? I understand that for many people "good enough" is indeed "good enough" and we hit that point a long while back. But I imagine that such people don't need to look at new camera releases at all.

I should also point out that the Nikon is much bigger and heavier, without weather-sealing, an articulated screen, or any of the advantages of mirrorless. So this seems an odd comparison.

Charlie Brown & Snoopy, the Seattle night shots are solid, and Johann's shots are wonderful (I especially like the one in color) but honestly the image quality does not look any better than the ground breaking Nikon D90 (2008). So in some ways I'm thinking it's a big improvement for micro 4/3s sensors but still behind the APS-c sensor. I'd expect the 4/3s to catch up pretty soon. Definitely within the next couple of years.

--Rich

Thanks, I guess. I'm really impressed with the way people can examine a photograph consisting of 1000x750 pixels (from a JPEG) and come up with such a detailed comparison to other cameras.

people see what they want. imo its almost impossible to judge IQ given the downsizing required here. having said that, larry i,m amazed at a couple of those night shots taken with that SLOW kit zoom. i think theyre pretty damn good considering the lens used. i'd like to see what the d90-or whatever-produces in that light at 6.3!

Image quality is a pointless analysis on the internet. A friend of mine just bought herself a G12 and has been sending me some of her efforts via email ... if she was using my D700 I supect I wouldn't be able to tell the difference! The little (point and shoot) Canon is very good.

How hard is the camera to focus, does the interface suit you, does it actually expose correctly most of the time without blowing highlights? These are the sorts of things that interest me about the OM-D ... not dumb IQ comparisons with other cameras!

Image quality is a pointless analysis on the internet. A friend of mine just bought herself a G12 and has been sending me some of her efforts via email ... if she was using my D700 I supect I wouldn't be able to tell the difference! The little (point and shoot) Canon is very good.

How hard is the camera to focus, does the interface suit you, does it actually expose correctly most of the time without blowing highlights? These are the sorts of things that interest me about the OM-D ... not dumb IQ comparisons with other cameras!

Hi Keith!

My experience, so far (based on about 60 hours use!), is that the interface is going to take a bit of learning, but not that much. Given the size (ever so smaller than an OM-1), there are fewer buttons on the outside (compared to my E-510). This has been very much helped, by the touch screen back, as well as the one button access to the large info panel for adjusting parameters (not to mention the two top dials and two function buttons that can be re-assigned). I have only tried it by accident, but the touch screen can be used in a point for focus, followed by a shot.

In this morning's shots (before sunrise) I did not change the metering method (used default) and only had to adjust exposure (very easy!) by one or two stops. Focus in every case was perfect (I was using F8 with a tripod). One thing I can say, the grip should be considered an extremely desirable option. So far, I have been using the landscape part of it only. I am so far, extremely impressed with the EM-5.

My E-510 was noticeably larger than an OM, the EM-5 feels more like a return to the OM.

I ran into a friend last week at a camera shop. He had an OM-D w/Pan-Leica 25/1.4 and an X Pro 1 w/ 35/1.4 in his camera bag. I played with both and my first impression was that the X Pro 1 was pretty average at AF while the OM-D was instantaneous and accurate. The X Pro 1 took me back to the 90's when I had my N5005 Nikon with 28-70 plastic zoom. Of the two I would certainly pick the OM-D if AF speeds matters to your photography. And the rear screen is huge and beautiful!

If people want the ultimate in image quality, they're looking in the wrong thread. D800 and 5D Mk III are that way >>

My GF1 gives me brilliant image quality that is all I expect out of a digital camera - which I use as backup for my film cameras. But top end image quality is not why I ditched my Canon 5D to get a Leica M6TTL and the GF1. It's all to do with this simple question: what good is the best camera in the world when it's not with you at all times?

My GF1 + pancake 2.8 fits in a belt pouch I wear everywhere, and I hardly notice the weight. Can a D800 do that? Hmm.

I actually don't find the UI difficult, maybe because I've used the EP2, EP3 and EPL2 before the OMD. A nice addition is that IMO very useful control knobs for aperture and exposure compensation. If you put it in S mode then the wheel can change your speeds as needed.

Image quality is a pointless analysis on the internet. A friend of mine just bought herself a G12 and has been sending me some of her efforts via email ... if she was using my D700 I supect I wouldn't be able to tell the difference! The little (point and shoot) Canon is very good.

How hard is the camera to focus, does the interface suit you, does it actually expose correctly most of the time without blowing highlights? These are the sorts of things that interest me about the OM-D ... not dumb IQ comparisons with other cameras!

Charlie Brown & Snoopy, the Seattle night shots are solid, and Johann's shots are wonderful (I especially like the one in color) but honestly the image quality does not look any better than the ground breaking Nikon D90 (2008). So in some ways I'm thinking it's a big improvement for micro 4/3s sensors but still behind the APS-c sensor. I'd expect the 4/3s to catch up pretty soon. Definitely within the next couple of years.

--Rich

In your opinion, how does the APS-C sensor stack up against FF sensors? And what about FF against MF digital? ...... Is your current camera ground breaking compare to a MF camera with IQ180 back?

P.S. I obviously don't care about the answer as it is pointless IMO... much like what you've said above.

All the shots that I posted were taken with the Oly 12-50mm. It was raining pretty heavily at times that morning and having the entire set water resistant was somewhat reassuring. At one point, I was dabbing water drops off the front of the lens.

So, here are some examples taken at 6400 ISO, at the Seattle Coldplay concert, last night. These were all with the 12-50mm lens. These are lowly JPEGS converted from RAW, using the Lightroom 4.1RC2. This release candidate contains the RAW converter for the EM-5, but not documented. To say I'm impressed with the capabilities of this camera, is an extreme understatement! The AF under these conditions was extremely quick, with no apparent shutter lag (see shot 5).

Were those sooc? I see you said that they were converted, but was there any post color or contrast or etc tweaking there?

Thanks!

These were straight conversions from the Lightroom 4.1RC2 install that I did last night. Direct import, with a JPEG output, the only tweak was limiting the pixel dimensions to 1000x1000. I'm using AdobeRGB for the camera. The shots were made using spot metering, with typical exposure compensation of -2 stops.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.